Skip to main content

About your Search

20130113
20130121
STATION
MSNBCW 2
CSPAN 1
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
several years from 2000, where we had a surplus under president clinton to get to a deficit under president bush. so it will take some time. but i think sequestration is a blunt instrument. it doesn't allow the cabinet secretaries, not just the secretary of defense, but the secretary of every other agency, to make judicious judgments about which programs are higher priority. and we in the congress should be able to make those judgments ourselves, working with the administration. so i don't think it's the right instrument. i think the goal is appropriate, which is to reduce the deficit, do it in a balanced way, and recognize that there are some things that you can do up-front, quickly. there are some things that are best done, sort of, towards the end of the cycle. and the other factor, too, is we can't forget that one of the best anecdotes to a deficit is a strong, growing economy, particularly growing jobs. and so there are things we have to do to grow jobs. >> i think everybody agrees on the jobs front. anyway, senator jack reed, democrat from rhode island, the senior man when i
deficits, america cannot afford another debate with this congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they've already racked up. >> bill: so the question -- so why should the president entertain this notion that the debt ceiling which republicans voted for 19 times under george w. bush without a peep, you know, why should he entertain the notion that suddenly this is a matter of big negotiations? >> well, he's trying to say that he shouldn't but unfortunately the house republicans have the majority in congress. unfortunately for him, so when he says he doesn't want to debate it and negotiate over it, he is running up against the fact that people who have the power in the house do want to debate it and that can cause problems. he certainly is pushing this idea here to try to remove this from the realm of what he wants and the american people see as rational debate. he used a lot of words yesterday that were very strong to try to make people see this as what he called an absurd way of approaching this. he talked about this being like holding a gun to your head or ransom. this
was raised in august, the political fight and the spotlight on the count row's deficit and debt problems led s&p to downgrade the u.s. credit rating for the first time in history. >> geithner steered the major economic moves in the first term, now he's stepping down at treasury. the pick to replace him is jack lew, who has established a close relationship with the president. he is know chummy with the republicans on the hill after the debt ceiling negotiation. for that reason and other, his looming confirmation hearing could be bumpy. but if confirmed, lew will likely be dealing with the top issue in this second term, how to get the economy moving and addressing the count re's long-term fiscal problems. >> this is a president that is forced to grapple to the tenor of our times with the budget woes, with the economy that can't get over the hump. it's going to consume most of his time, i believe, in the second term. >> what he cannot do, going into this term is go from economic crisis to economic crisis. that's not leadership. what he will have to do is figure out how we address this in a broa
in a night of revelry in paris. it seems, he writes in his memoir, a deficit of trust existed between him and the president's men. a former black operations specialist, the general is very slick on the book circuit, blocking and passing adroitly when the questions get into the weeds. his political outlook is liberal, having admittedly voted for obama in 2008. he speaks the language of the left, eshoeing any queries about his dealings with president obama and preferring to emphasize soft power and what he calls his ballistic relationship with people. if the reader is look for an spraipgz of how he was ambushed by rolling stone, the general is mostly mute. a commander naive enough to think a reporter who hears thinks doesn't make them public. he actually said he was surprised by the tone and direction of the article. what is astounding, with all the money and manpower that the pentagon has spent on media relations, all the military strategizing, nobody seems to have gained much sophistication if in dealing with the press since the war on vietnam. he sprinkles the book with great warriors an
a deficit and debt point of view. so there's much more resistance on the republican side than there used to be. to all of the little riders and pieces of pork that are loaded into these disaster relief bills. and that's some of the changes we've seen in terms of these things being held up. an easy way to do this, and it's hard to get an agreement on this in the senate-s just to pass a clean disaster relief bill with nobody else's projects in there. having said that, republicans need to be careful. there are a number of republican house seats in new jersey and new york that could be threatened if republicans are perceived as holding up aid to sandy. and it's just not anywhere they really want to be when they're trying to focus on a debt ceiling fight or at least they should be. and i think from a political point of view and even substantively they have much bigger -- they have much bigger things to go after and try and accomplish than being perceived as callous when you have so many people in the northeast that don't have functional homes in the dead of winter. >> quickly changing topics,
to prioritize the government's bills. what's wrong with that idea? guest: we have had some deficit reduction. as the president laid out a couple days ago, we have had over $2 trillion. we had 1.5 trillion that came from previous actions. and then we added just a few days ago some further deficit reductions through some increased taxes on the very wealthy of this country. so we have already begun to undertake deficit reduction. to use that as a reason to use the debt ceiling as a weapon is really playing with fire. they say pay some bills and not pay others. we have never tried that before. host: is it feasible? guest: i don't think so. which bills? social security? veterans? people out fighting for this country? which bills do you pay? we never tried that. i think the president put it so well. this is not a deadbeat nation really, and i think common sense is likely to prevail within the republican ranks. i know, if i might say so, if not firsthand, secondhand, much of the leadership within the house republican caucus, not all of it, i think some realizes the potential consequences. host: if
that number is. it's more than a trillion. we are working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it. second, the administration does not support blowing up planets. third, why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars that could be exploited by a one-man starship. if you pursue a career in a math relead field, the force will be us. the death star's power to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force. bravo to the white house for putting that out. it's filled well inside references to star wars movies. we tweeted a link where you can read the whole thing. blue rapid says it's $850 quadrillion by the way. now you know how fast it would cost. >> somebody studied how much it would cost. they have hot links throughout the article. >> it's amazing. >> it's a great piece. >>@bp show on twitter. >> all right. >> death star. >> we have a death star. we have no trillion dollar coin. all of the fun stuff. over the weekend. >> franklin mint. >> this is "the bill press show." going to do the young turks. i think the number one thing that
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)